Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday May 14, 2012 @04:30PM
from the and-then-there-were-two dept.

New submitter Dainsanefh sends this quote from the LA Times:
"Ron Paul, Mitt Romney's lone remaining rival for the Republican presidential nomination, announced Monday that he would stop spending money on the party's 11 remaining primaries, in effect suspending his campaign. ... Apart from President Obama and Romney, Paul has raised more money than any other White House contender this year – more than $36 million. His calls for strict adherence to the Constitution and his no-nonsense manner have spawned a vocal and well organized group of followers, but not enough to give him a realistic shot at the presidency."

Correct, but getting Ron Paul's follower's support is key #1 to the Republican strategy. If they don't get them, they'll lose to Obama. If they do get them, they'll win. Having a presence at the convention will just make that key even more important. The GOP is on a tight rope. What will they do?

Exactly. Most supporters of Ron Paul are not "loyal republicans" and will vote for a third party before they will vote for Romney. On the other hand, how many Romney supporters would vote for a third party if Romney somehow doesn't win the nomination? Very few. The GOP has a chance to gain huge momentum by supporting Paul's ideas, gaining votes from youth who have found that Obama's hope was a lie and from peace-loving democrats who are disgusted about Obama's track record on foreign policy and torture. However, Romney will not attract any of them. Romney will attract a few former Obama supporters who will decide to switch sides and will attract the "hardcore" Republicans who will never vote for anyone else, but no one else. Can Romney win? It just depends on how badly Obama screws up the next few months.

According to http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/ [thereal201...ecount.com] Romney has about ~300 confirmed delegates (keyword: confirmed) versus Paul's ~100 confirmed. That's it. For example, Romney won the popular vote but Paul won the majority of delegates in Massachusetts. Those persons belong to Paul not Romney.

Any other numbers you see are GUESSES, because those states like Florida, Alaska, Idaho have not held their delegate-electing conventions yet.

Joe Biden's contribution to this presidency hasn't been in the form of policy decisions, it's been mainly as a public speaker and ideological mouthpiece. And in that capacity, he's arguably done a fantastic job - just look at how the gay-marriage thing played out last week.

I think Ron Paul would be terrible at the actual sport of governing if he were ever picked for the team. But he's a fine colour commentator.

Yep, there used to be Republicans that wanted it and Democrats that wanted it, but within the last couple decades neither of the parties has been anti-war or small government. There are millions who would want such a president, but the only candidate with any chance is "unelectable"

A whistleblower from DHS recently reported that there is a plan afoot by the Obama regime to pull a "Reichstag Event", which would allow him to declare martial law, postponing (or cancelling) the election..

Your DHS whistleblower is insane. As is a significant fringe of Republicans, who seem to think that cooperation and democratic principles don't matter anymore, because the wrong guy is sitting in the White House.

Your DHS whistleblower is insane. As is a significant fringe of Republicans, who seem to think that cooperation and democratic principles don't matter anymore, because the wrong guy is sitting in the White House.

The funny thing is, by the time the 2008 election was coming up, there were a number of liberals who were absolutely certain Bush would declare martial law or something and just keep on going.

Yes but they were going on history; an executive branch that was breathtaking in its brazen power-grabs. They told transparent lies to get us into war, ignored the Geneva Convention and our own laws and refused to back down even once discovered, and eroded the liberty of the average American significantly with laws like the PATRIOT act. In Obama's case, he has done nothing to merit the hate of the Republicans. Far from it! We got a Republican plan for health care, Goldman Sachs still runs the economy, tax cuts were extended and never raised, and he never came for your guns. The criticism from the right for Obama is positively bewildering; he's been as good to them as a Democrat could possibly be.

Yes but they were going on history; an executive branch that was breathtaking in its brazen power-grabs.

Previous presidents have fought various battles against the other branches of government. It's not like George W. Bush. was the first. Lincoln tried to suspend the right of habeas corpus until the Supreme Court slapped him down for it. The thing that amazed me about the crazy liberals (not all liberals are crazy by the way) who believed that W was going to suspend the elections was that the Bush presidency never disobeyed any Supreme Court decisions, not even ones they didn't like. If the court said "You can't do X" then they stopped doing X. I think by the end of his 2nd term that W really wanted out of the job and he wanted the next guy to have to make the hard decisions he was unable and unwilling to do while still in office, such as deciding on when to leave Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, anonymous coward does have a point that Obama has done many things that 5+ years ago were considered Republican ideas. The Democrats had little to offer in the 2004 election except "We hate Bush" and they failed to win the presidency. The Republicans' current "We hate Obama" campaign will also fail as campaigns devoid of any real ideas always do when running for the presidency. You have to have more to offer than "I'm the anti-incumbent" to win. Ronald Reagan knew that. Bill Clinton knew that too.

Polls show support for gay marriage around 50%. How does that make Obama unelectable. As much as some political commentators like to believe otherwise, pissing off your opponent's base doesn't mean you lose votes.

Yes, I'm sure that all those delegates that are technically not bound by their constituents' votes will suddenly discover their deep and unabiding love for Paul, and will vote for him during the Republican Convention.

Man, I really wonder what will happen to all you Paul-fans when Romney gets the overwhelming number of delegates during the Convention. I'm sure there'll be something along the lines of him winning a write-in campaign during the actual election, because, let's face it, all the REAL Ron Paul fans haven't really voted yet.

>>>>>Paul has been gaining delegates and winning states (at least 8 so far)

It's now 12 states. After this weekend it will likely be 14.

>>Yes, I'm sure that all those delegates that are technically not bound to Romney will suddenly discover their deep and unabiding love for Paul

No need.They already love Paul. There are already known Paulbots who got themselves elected in states like Massachusetts. The Paulbots versus the Romneybots is ~70% to 30%..... and we're seeing that same pattern in state after state.

>>I really wonder what will happen to all you Paul-fans when Romney gets the overwhelming number of delegates during the Convention

Nothing.Because I'm expecting it. Yes I want Paul to win but I'm not naive'. I expect Romney to win the 1st round delegate voting ~60% to 40% (same result as Virginia when Paul/Romney ran head-to-head). The end. He's got the support of the RNC Leadership and they WILL make him win, no matter what it takes.

If it turns-out I'm wrong, and Paul pulls a miracle to win the convention, I'll give the guy $5,000 with a note, "I was wrong to doubt you."

That is why we don't have a democracy. If we did, we'd still have Jim Crow laws, which were quite popular among the people. Tyranny of the majority is tyranny. I could care less about the will of the people when the collective will calls for suicide.

So you would rather that he fall in line with a corrupt system that cheats him and his supporters at every opportunity? I've never seen so many people at any campaign event as I have seen at Paul's, despite a total media blackout.

But hey, if you like the way things are going in this country, keep doing what you have always done, and vote for only mainstream R and D candidates. If you happened to vote for the loser, at least you can say "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos".

p>Cheating the system to get elected... no respect for this man now. (Yes I know its not technically cheating the letter of the law, but it flies in the face of a proper democratic election.)

No it doesn't.How would you characterize as "a proper democratic election"? Do such things occur somewhere? What does that fantasy have to do with the internal party politics that determines reality?I LOL in your general direction sir.

What is a caucus?What is a district?What is a precinct?How do precinct chairs get to be chairs?How do state/national party delegates get to be delegates?How do party platform planks get to be platform planks?How did Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed and Don Wildmon and James Dobson take over the Republican Party 30 years ago?How do state legislatures get filled?How do voting precincts/districts get carved up?

The reason the political process in the USA sucks is that people fetishize the act of casting a vote and think that's where the citizenry derive their power.Every time you cast a vote you are simply hitting a toggle switch within a previously constructed system. You are just as free as a pigeon in a Skinner box presented with two levers to peck. No amount of pecking lever 1 over lever 2 will change the structure of the box nor the fact that its creators put you in it.

A true grassroots movement could easily sweep away the crap in the two major parties. But such things don't happen because people are too lazy to get that involved. They'd rather just show up three times a year to vote for whatever's put in front of them. The power goes to those who organize the most. If you show up as a single solitary Paulite to your precinct thinking you're gonna put your little slice of the GOP back on track to "true conservatism" (whatever that means) you will be blindsided by the well-entrenched career powermongers and heavily motivated christianists who have been doing this a lot longer than you and will be using their numerous leftover extra brain cycles to plan dinner and next week's cotillion while they reflexively and casually exploit Robert's Rules of Order style procedures to cut you right out of the process should you try to speak up or add agenda items or nominate yourself as delegate to the your party's larger conventions. They already know ahead of time who is going to be nominated for what positions, who is going to make motions, who is going to second the motions, who is going to call for votes, who is going to move to end the session.... This is settled well in advance. If you're not part of an existing clan, don't enter an advanced open PK-ing MMORPG, because all that happens is that YHBPKed YHL HTH HAND.

I'm not completely familiar with US politics, but does this mean that he's going to continue running under a third-party ballot?

No. Nothing has really changed except not wasting money on campaign stops, which is very costly. He's still 100% in the race.Many of his followers use the internet to their advantage - there's simply no point in reiterating the same points over and over when you can hop on Youtube or elsewhere and find plenty of information.He's still on the Republican ticket, he's still pushing for the presidency, and most of all, he's getting precinct delegates to join the fight which has the GOP scared shitless. Win or lose the presidency, liberty-minded folks are taking over the Republican party conventions and will have a huge say not only in this election cycle, but the next on who becomes the nominee.Ron Paul has refused to go into debt for his campaign, unlike his rivals. Unlike Romney who spends $40,000 per day of taxpayer dollars for secret service protection, he has refused it, even though he's legally entitled to it.

I'm not completely familiar with US politics, but does this mean that he's going to continue running under a third-party ballot?

No. He never has and will not run as a "third-party" candidate. And the LA Times quote, of course, entirely mischaracterizes the announcement.

Note that the media has stubbornly refused to cover ANY of his campaign in the last few weeks. He has been gaining delegates and winning states (at least 8 so far), enough to be officially on the ballot for the ACTUAL selection of the Republican nominee (which the mainstream media does NOT get to decide, even if they think they do). But of course when Paul announces some pull-back or strategy shift in his campaign, they use it to declare once and for all "Romney is the winner!" - which they have been trying to do all along.

Ron Paul has decided not to spend any campaign resources in the remaining primary states. He will, however, continue to amass "delegates" for the Republican National Convention, where the nominee is officially declared. And we still hope to see a brokered convention, which will be a lot of fun, because the Republican establishment wants it to be a show, not a real contest.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Ron Paul ran as a "third-party" candidate for President in 1988 on the Libertarian Part ticket. So, while he may not run as a third party candidate this year (and I don't think he will), he has done so in the past.

Kinda like what happened in Oklahoma [youtube.com], where the RNC tried to railroad the convention by refusing to follow Robers Rules of Order and Romney supporters physically assaulting [youtube.com] Ron Paul supporters?

He is not actively campaigning in the primaries because he is focused on the delegate process. He has a plurality of delegates in more than 5 states, so he will be on the ballot at the convention. If he stops Romney from getting the majority, then 2nd round of delegates can all vote for whoever they want to.

Saw him give a speech in Idaho, it was a fantastic experience. Just thought it was odd the local organizers that got on the mic to introduce him first gave a speech espousing the ideals of the christian nation and a strong military budget. While when Paul actually got on stage he said exactly the opposite. Limited foreign involvement, liberty as an ideal for the inclusion of all beliefs, etc., etc. Maybe he would of had a better shot if he wasn't surrounded by people spouting the same old tired right wing talking points.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights say nothing about the "separation of church and state." It simply states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the very first sentence in the Bill of Rights, so the Framers considered it to be pretty important. The "wall of separation" was built by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html [loc.gov]. In this letter Jefferson refers directly to the text in the First Amendment, with no additional context.

From everything that I've heard from Ron Paul, he adheres to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, nothing more (building huge wall) and nothing less (infringement on the free exercise thereof).

You must not be familiar with Celine's Third Law: "An honest politician is a national calamity."

I wasn't, until I looked it up just now... kinda wish I hadn't, the first two laws are eerily accurate.

However, the Third Law seems fundamentally flawed; First, the author assumes "Corrupt politicians simply line their own pockets," which is not quite true - they line the pockets of their political benefactors and allies as well, who have their own political agendas but are not beholden to taxpayers by way of holding elected office.

Consider the why and how of the crooked politician's greed - while they personally may have no allegiance towards a particular political ideology, the people who are bribing them (let's call a duck a duck, shall we?) very much do, and some have the financial backing necessary to buy enough crooked politicians to effectively run the nation by proxy. For example, take a look at how much money Goldman Sachs spends on politicians, then look at how those politicians vote when it comes to matters of regulating banks, or any other social aspect that may affect an institution such as GS.

The other problem with this Third Law is the assumption that a single politician would be able to enact massive, sweeping social change all by themselves, which we all know is not how things work... especially when you consider how massively outnumbered they would be by the bought-and--paid-for corporate spokesmonkeys.

I'd like a citation from the articles where Paul or his manager say We are "ending" the campaign. Please.IF you're going to act like FAUX News with distortions THEN I'd like you to back up that distortion with direct-linked quotesELSE retract. Thank you.

Ron Paul announced Monday that he would no longer campaign in states that have yet to hold their presidential primaries, effectively putting an end to the last remaining primary challenge to Mitt Romney.
“Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted,” Paul said in a statement released by the campaign Monday afternoon. “Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of doll

I'm from the UK and so have no vested interest but I am a bit of a Ron Paul fan and this article smacks of the same shit that saw him completely ignored in almost every single MSM news piece and article on the GOP nomination race.

The Paul campaign is redirecting their attention to the delegate strategy---which is turning out to be very successful. This is being discussed [dailypaul.com] at The Daily Paul. They predicted that the media would intentionally misrepresent this as Ron Paul ending his campaign, and they were right.

As it is, I'm not voting for a lesser evil this year, as I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the difference between 98% evil and 100% evil isn't worth it. Instead, I'll be finding the best third-party candidate I can, and if none is available I'll write myself in.

It turns out that the Republican National Committee has inadvertently disqualified Mitt Romney -- either that or they open themselves to a class action law suit which would require them to cough up tens of millions of dollars to Ron Paul supporters.

On 4/25/2012 the RNC made this statement:

"Governor Romney's strong performance and delegate count at this stage of the primary process has made him our party's presumptive nominee," Mr. Priebus said. "In order to maximize our efforts I have directed my staff at the R.N.C. to open lines of communication with the Romney campaign."and"It's my intention to have a seamless and complete merger between the presumptive nominee and the Republican National Committee," Mr. Priebus said. "That means political, communications, fund-raising, research and the chairman's office, along with the governor's main operational team, are completely merged."

"(a) The Republican National Committee shall not, without the prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee from the state involved, contribute money or in-kind aid to any candidate for any public or party office except the nominee of the Republican Party or a candidate who is unopposed in the Republican primary after the filingdeadline for that office."

(b)... No person nominated in violation of this rule shall be recognized by the Republican National Committee as the nominee of the Republican Party from that state."

That the Republican Party is a "private" organization with its own rules doesn't permit it to defraud the public -- not even if that public is its own members. People have joined the Republican Party and made monetary donations on the reasonable presumption that the RNC would follow its own rules IT HAS ADVERTISED TO THE PUBLIC. The damages are actual and the fraud deliberate. Triple damages are due to all who have contributed to Republican candidates for President and the RNC is liable.

Ron Paul has been frozen out by the mainstream media for decades, from Faux News to the liberal media. His rising popularity shows that people are waking up, albeit, late. Too bad, he could have saved us a few trillion in waste, crimes and losses.

Apparently you're referring to the notion that Ron Paul is a great admirer of Ayn Rand and/or follows her philosophy. I hadn't heard that before, and a brief search turned up no real support for that view*. Your post is at best woefully incomplete and at worst simply irrelevant. How you got so many up-mods is beyond me.

* One site [americanthinker.com] implies that Ron Paul's son Rand Paul was named in Ayn's honor, but his actual name is Randal and his wife shortened it to Rand from Randy. Another article [thehill.com] says "Dr. Paul has said he is a great admirer of Ayn Rand", though I was unable to locate any direct quote to support this statement. This article [alternet.org] is similar. I was unable to locate anything short of a few fringe views. Libertarians and libertarianism was apparently influenced by Ayn [wikipedia.org], but by no means exclusively.

Ayn Rand (Anna Rosenbaum was her real name I think) was certainly a Libertarian in her political beliefs. What would now be considered a pretty standard Limited Government Libertarian. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged no doubt have influenced some people toward Libertarian ideas. Perhaps Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has as well.

I don't believe the connection between Ayn Rand and Libertarians is unfair. Randians will almost certainly be Libertarians, but Libertarians are not necessarily Randians. I am a Libertarian despite the fact that I at least somewhat disagree with Rand's position on ethics. Rand also stressed a kind of pacifism where force can only be justified in defending yourself from harm. An idea which I think resonates quite well with many Libertarians as a principle behind their belief in political freedom.

You spat out a sweeping generalization based on your personal prejudice. Have you actually ever met any "Randians" or Libertarians, or does all you know of them come from/. forum discussions? Assume I'm one of them. We've never met, yet you presume you can read my mind? That's chutzpah. You know a lot less than you think you know.

Are you aware that Ron Paul once (?) ran as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate? Are you aware that Rand disagreed vicerally with many Libertarian points of view?

Well, this could quickly turn into a novel. (And and Ayn Rand has shown us, a novel is the "perfect" vehicle for a political manifesto!)

I'm multitasking at work at the moment but I promise to come back to this thread tonight and give you something more substantial. My claim is not, as you've characterized it below, that supporting Ron Paul is completely untenable without self-deception, but that the Randian-Libertarian philosophy taken as a whole is.

There are certainly individual issues on which Paul is totally correct, and that's why I suggested downthread that under some circumstances he might make a great VP. But those individual issues, to me, don't nearly outweigh the issues he's wrong about - and more pertinently, I don't think those issues are the real reason for his 'underground' popularity - even among many of the people who cite them. You might conceivably disagree with me on whether the good outweighs the bad, and on that basis you might indeed be a perfectly intellectually honest Paul supporter. But the Randian Libertarian movement in the USA is not predominantly made up of that kind of supporter. The reasons why I think that, are what could turn this comment into a novel.

If I come back to this article in a week, will the moderation make sense, or will it just be a case of whichever group mods last and in force, wins?

I'm still planning on voting for him.I think that the two party system we have is inherently broken. Do I think Paul would be the best president? not by a long shot. Do I think he would shake things up enough? hopefully.

Do I think Paul would be the best president? not by a long shot. Do I think he would shake things up enough? hopefully.

... and that's why the House of Reps needs him exactly where he is. He does a great job putting what brakes he can on legislative excess before things get out of the committees he's on. People who want him to run for President don't often think of how well he does keep things shaken up. His positions fit his current position just right.

Yeah that's right. Tell me, what has had value for thousands of years. I guess that preferring a metal that has had value for thousands of years and will have value as far as we can tell for thousands more, over a piece of paper that politicians can print pretty much at will, makes hima loon.

nativism and xenophobia

TY, I learned a new word. He thinks that we have laws for immigration that should be followed and that the current immigration process should be streamlined. I guess that's xenophobia? lol

extreme isolationism

So you walk around neighbourhood with a fully loaded M16, and occasionally march into random people's houses and order them around with a gun to their faces? No? well then you must be an extreme isolationist!

cult-of-personality

Anyone who says that ron paul has a cult of personality is just beyond eliousonal about him. He is uncharismatic, he runs on sentences, he jumps around in his statements. If there's a ron paul cult, it's because he's spent 30 years or so in public office, standing by his principles while everyone mocks him.

Yeah that's right. Tell me, what has had value for thousands of years. I guess that preferring a metal that has had value for thousands of years and will have value as far as we can tell for thousands more, over a piece of paper that politicians can print pretty much at will, makes hima loon.

Inflation is necessary for the proper functioning of the economy. You may be scared to death of inflation, but if it did not exist, peoples' natural tendency to save would act like brakes to slow down commerce activity. Nobody thinks that hyperinflation is a good idea, and the federal reserve does a really good job of preventing it. But inflation that varies between 0% - 5% per annum helps to encourage people to invest now rather than sit on piles of money that do nobody any good.

How can you be sure this is correct? A pile of money sitting on the ground all year long does nobody any good. Its net value to the economy is zero. Whether that money is paper or gold, it accomplishes nothing. On the other hand, a pile of money that is used as tender to exchange value between people lots of times generates tons of activity; it enables people to work, to feed their families, to buy entertainment, to do pretty much anything. Part of the reason the American economy is so huge and other countries' economies are so small is that America has lots of transactions that multiply the value of the currency that is in circulation.

Don't be scared of "politicians printing money". You should be much more scared about what will happen when people realize that gold is getting scarce and they should just buy it and sit on it and never spend it.

nativism and xenophobia

TY, I learned a new word. He thinks that we have laws for immigration that should be followed and that the current immigration process should be streamlined. I guess that's xenophobia? lol

America's immigration laws are self-defined. We wrote them, so we decide what is legal and what is illegal. It's purely a farce to say "This kind of immigration is illegal so they shouldn't do it." The opposite is true: we didn't want it to happen, so we made it illegal. Laws preventing people from migrating to America are a recent invention, and frankly they're doing more harm than good.

There are tons of talented people all around the world who wish they could live in America and start businesses and buy houses. We have lots of unemployed people who would love to work for a talented Chinese scientist or Indian doctor. We have tons of empty houses and it would be really neat if enterprising Latin Americans bought these homes and occupied them. Why aren't we willing to change our immigration laws to encourage people to immigrate?

So, no growth occurred during the period 1792 to ca 1920 when there was no net inflation? Your bogus hypothesis is shown false by history. Business does not like uncertainty, and having the quantity of money under the arbitrary control of government is a serious form of uncertainty. When inflation is high, wise people try to acquire things that maintain value. When possible, they also want things that are portable, like gold, so that if necessary they can flee the tyranny that is inflating the currency.

Part of the reason the American economy is so huge and other countries' economies are so small is that America has lots of transactions...

I guess that preferring a metal that has had value for thousands of years and will have value as far as we can tell for thousands more, over a piece of paper that politicians can print pretty much at will, makes hima loon.

Gold's value swung wildly throughout history, causing massive short-term inflation and deflation. That is far more damaging than long-term inflation, which is easily avoided by not sitting on a pile of cash, which should be treated like a barter stand-in and not a gold equivalent.

Further, the same limited quantities that give gold the value you desire also make it too scarce for a growing economy.

And then there is the inability to "print" money. Ron Paul would probably put this in the "plus" column, but I think that governments will spend recklessly whether they can print money or not. Most of modern Europe is evidence that governments will borrow heavily even if they have no ability to print money. World history is chock-full of "Greeces", well before the federal reserve system was invented. In the US, we had plenty of bank failures, financial panics, and major recessions while on the gold standard. The federal reserve system gives the government more tools than it had prior to it's invention.

So in short, the main thrust of the pro-gold argument is that people who stuff their mattresses full of cash would be better off in the long run. No argument there. Of course they could be buying gold and stuffing that in their mattresses right now, so I'm frankly at a loss as to why we should give up all the advantages of the federal reserve system for such people.

Which gets me to the reason we tend to dismiss Ron Paul as a crazy person. What I wrote isn't remotely controversial. Banking has been a mess since it was invented - one of the core issues of our young country involved banking. We tried several national models, all of which had at least one spectacular failure. I'm under no delusion that the current Federal Reserve is the ultimate solution, but it seems to work better than it's predesessors. Ron Paul seems like a really intelligent guy, and he's also pretty well educated. So it really seems... odd... that he comes to the conclusions that he does on this matter. My conclusion is that his mind works in a way that is very different from my own. I could be the crazy one, but from my perspective he is the one drawing irrational conclusions.

While on the Gold Standard, the banks were still under the Federal Reserve, who dictated monetary policy rather than let "the market" figure it out. I don't know if the end result would have been better or worse, but part of what Ron Paul and other gold-buggers rail on is the lack of accountability and the "legislation" of our monetary supply/demand. Give the banks the ability to create their own money and let the consumers decide which to use. (and yes, while competing currencies would be very inconven

A short term swing in the value of gold is one of the things that make crashes and bubbles short and self-limiting.

Please read up on the history of financial panics and recessions and the Great Depression and then re-read your reply. I'm not asking for a lot of your time - perhaps an hour. We had many really terrible financial situations in the US while on the gold standard. As usual, someone was nice enough to compile a list over at Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org]

That's only sort-of true. He actually just killed the Bretton Woods reincarnation of it, which wasn't really gold-backed currency but an agreement to hold the price of gold to $35 per ounce. Since much of the world was pegged to the dollar, this acted a lot like a gold standard.

In the decades since, with the federal reserve corporation fully in control of monetary supply, the common American has seen their income stagnate for the past three decades while the top 10%

Wait a minute... are you blaming wage stagnation on a single factor?

Income disparity has never been greater in America than now. Is that a mark of success?

1) Fiat currencies have been destroyed by hyperinflation a thousand times over. Their values regularly go to zero. Gold doesn't.

So don't try to hold large amounts of fiat currency. Use it as a barter replacement and move on. If gold is so great, buy gold.

2) The notion that it is easy to avoid the punishing effects of inflation are so short sighted and ignorant it's hard to fully comprehend.

Which is why I didn't suggest that. Short-term inflation and deflation is horrible and destructive. I was referring to long-term deflation.

Telling people on a limited or fixed income that the solution to inflationary pressures is to just throw money into the stock market - the only thing with a chance of beating our current 6 to 7% inflation rate - is really no different.

Since you picked the 6-7% inflation number, you are obviously including energy and food. Care to explain how a gold standard will make oil less scarce or finite?

Europe is printing at warp speed via the ECB. They do not have a gold standard.

Europe is not printing - at least not like we did - that is the crux of the argument going on over there. Germany is terrified of inflation and will not print their way out of the crisis. Just this week, the elections changed the equation of power over there and I believe they have agreed to basically emulate the "quantitative easing" that the US did. Anyway, Greece can't print their own currency, which is forcing them to live within their means, which is killing their economy. This is what happens during a cash crunch under a gold standard as well, which is why I pointed to Greece as an example. True, QE will eventually cause inflation, but I maintain that long-term, predictable pain is better than the short-term shock the Greeks are going through.

The stated policy of the Federal Reserve is that the TBTF banks will be given infinite money if needed. Little people and even little banks? Screwed.

So what is your proposal? I have a feeling it isn't "learn lessons from the last fiscal crises and tweak the central bank", but rather, return to some era you have decided is the golden age. Am I right? People 200 years ago were not happy with the banking system, which is why they changed it in the first place.

The problem with these guys is that they have forceful personalities conductive to a cult-of-personality campaign and organization style. So they say a few things that make sense (in a "blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while" sense) and then certain people are willing to jump on board with everything else they say without considering what's being said because "this guy started out making sense."

Consider the guy above you: "Tell me, what has had value for thousands of years. I guess that preferring a metal that has had value for thousands of years and will have value as far as we can tell for thousands more, over a piece of paper that politicians can print pretty much at will, makes hima loon."

Actually, the problem with goldbuggery is that it cannot work in the modern economic system for two reasons:#1 - Most of the gold in the world is being used for industrial applications.#2 - Even absent #1, there is not remotely enough gold in the world for even one major nation to create a "backing" system to allow people to trade in their currency for raw gold.

Additionally, even if that did exist, gold puts immense downward pressures on currency and economics. So much so that even at the beginning of the US, we actually existed on a silver standard, and only created a silver-to-gold exchange ratio in 1792 due to a shortage of enough silver to back the currency. The 1792 expansion was - tadahh! - the government instantly creating money by adding another so-called precious metal to the currency base.

Historically, goldbuggery and silverbuggery were pretty much at odds, and there was constant changing and exchanging of the two metals with other countries that were engaging in the same foolishness and setting their own silver-to-gold exchange rates. The Independent Treasury Act of 1848 caused a lot of gold to migrate to the British due to a skewed exchange rate; this also caused the gold rush of 1849, because gold was so overvalued by law. Constant changes in the availability of one metal or the other - due to finding of new veins for mining - would cause devaluation or overvaluation in one locality or another.

In short: hitching your finances to goldbuggery and silverbuggery is insanity. And it seems the only people who can't figure that out (the "never learned history so they're doomed to repeat it" crowd) tend to be on the Ron Paul side of the political spectrum.

If our money were backed by gold and silver, people couldn’t just sit in some fancy building and push a button to create new money. They would have to engage in honest trade with another party that already has some gold in their possession. Alternatively, they would have to risk their lives and assets to find a suitable spot to build a gold mine, then get dirty and sweaty and actually dig up the gold. Not something I can imagine our “money elves” at the Fed getting down to whenever they feel like playing God with the economy.

Paulians don't even know what they're talking about when they claim to be quoting Ron Paul. If that isn't evidence of a cult of personality disorder, I don't know what is.

Bush I and Clinton were nearly indistinguishable from an economic perspective. Dole would not have rocked the Clinton boat too much. Bush II was pretty different from Gore, but even he kind of surprised everyone out of the gate by greatly expanding Medicare. Again, Kerry seems like he would have been different - but then again, Obama seemed different as well, and where has that gotten him? He followed the Bush timeline to leave Iraq, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, continues to push record levels of illegal immigrants out of the country, kept Guantanamo open, kept the Bush financial bailout rolling, renewed the Patriot Act, and of course greatly expanded Medicare. I'll grant you that McCain would have never dusted off and passed the old Republican Heartland Institute health care plan. And on social issues, it is unlikely that he would have ended don't ask, don't tell.

But wow, get away from the largely symbolic "wedge issues" and the parties don't really have much differentiation.

He is the only candidate that talks truth, which of course makes him unelectable.

i am not familiar with this strange new kind of "truth: you are referring to. ron paul's ideas would bring great opportunity for a very select and small number of people and oppression and misery for many, many, more. on top of that, much of it requires him to do things that are not within the power granted to the president.

i am not familiar with this strange new kind of "truth: you are referring to. ron paul's ideas would bring great opportunity for a very select and small number of people and oppression and misery for many, many, more

Except that the country's current course, with the utterly corrupt people currently in charge, is already bringing great opportunity for a very select and small number of politically-connected people and big corporations, and misery for many, many more. I don't see how having Paul in charge would be any worse. Instead, it'd probably be better, though not ideal: at least we'd get: 1) an end to the War on Some Drugs, along with all the federal spending on that, plus all the destructive effects it's having (creating a whole class of people who can't work and are forced into a life of crime), 2) an end to most of the foreign wars and empire-building and military bases overseas, along with a huge reduction in military spending, 3) for the liberals, gay marriage in some form, or at least no federal prohibitions on it, and 4) no more totally useless and insanely costly "stimulus" packages which give $22k Cisco routers to every puny little school in West Virginia. With all these cutback of things that are really hurting the economy and nation, then after Paul's gone we could get back to restoring additional government services that actually help instead of hurt. Effectively, having Paul in office would be like hitting the "reset" button on the government, something it desperately needs at this point.

However, as is obvious now, he's not going to be elected, and we're either going to get Romney or Obama (most likely Romney, though in practice there won't be any real difference between the two). So our nation is going to continue to go out of control until the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

I disagree. A President doesn't have the power to DO a lot of things without help from Congress, however he certainly has the power to NOT DO a lot of things, no matter what Congress thinks. Paul has been called "Dr. No" for a good reason.

Can he abolish Federal agencies? No. But he can force everyone to go home and not do their jobs. Can he unilaterally cut the defense budget? No, but he can make everyone go home; he is the Commander-in-Chief, after all. He can order all the troops to come home and bake cookies for their enlistment terms if he wants. Can he change marijuana law unilaterally? No, but he can direct the DEA to stop enforcing that law and allow states to do what they want while he's in the White House. He can also pardon everyone convicted of a marijuana-related crime, making federal and state efforts all useless. Finally, he can also put a quick stop to the TSA's shenanigans.

Um... How would there be oppression and misery? Somehow having a coherent foreign policy of free trade and not ZOMG BOMB EVERYTHING!!!1!11!1!1 is oppressive? Somehow opposing the unconstitutional detaining of American citizens is oppressive?

Very little that he wants to do is beyond the power of the president. If you want to talk about going beyond the power of the president how about you talk to Obama (and Bush) for starting wars without congress's approval and in the case of Obama ordering the executio

requires him to do things that are not within the power granted to the president.

When you write "power", I assume you mean "legal power". Exceeding the legal power of the president has been an almost monotonically increasing function for over 200 years, and Obama has so outrageously flouted the law that his actions bear no resemblance to the legal limits. It is precisely Ron Paul's greatest value that he will prevent this abuse by withdrawing previous illegal executive orders, vetoing illegal laws, and refusing to make new illegal actions.

The problem is that for every truth he speaks, he also speaks a dozen absurdities. He's ignorant of history, economics and governance. He'd make the worst kind of leader; the kind that blindly pushes through on purely ideological grounds. Beware the fanatic.

if he's ignorant of economics, what would you say about the rest of the politcritters? He's rather well versed in economic theory but he sticks to the oldschool. I bet 90% of capitol hill doesn't know what 'keynesian' means. Same with history, he knows well who started the whole middle east mess with Iran and shit (CIA 1953), i wouldn't be so sure your average D.C. dweller knows that.

We have "serious people" Bernake is the most serious of academic economists, of course he is running the country into the ground. The educated economists that caused the hyperinflation in Germany, Zimbabwe, Hungary, etc. were "serious people" often the best in their fields. What then do you propose? Keynesian economics have failed. The collapse of the European economy and the ongoing collapse of the American economy is proof of that.

>>> if Texas wants to enact a law saying gays and blacks have to sit at the back of the bus, thats OK with R Paul

Um no. The Supreme Court already ruled that segregation is a violation of the equality amendment. (14? 16? I forget). As for Obama's position: Marriage licenses are not granted by the Congress. They are granted by the People and their Legislatures. The U.S. has no authority to overrule what local people desire, anymore than the E.U. has the authority to force the Greeks or Poles or Spaniards to issue gay marriage licenses.

That's why slavery is still legal and inter-racial marriage is still illegal. Oh, wait...

When Obama was born, the marriage of his parents would have been illegal in a good chunk of the United States. The Supreme Court put a stop to that in 1967. The Fourteenth amendment gives the Federal Government a tremendous amount of power to overrule what local people desire, because so many local peoples desired that severely tanned individuals not be citizens. Ironically enough the very states that Obama would leave those decisions to were forced by the federal government to allow marriages like that of his parents within his lifetime. I wonder if the irony is lost on him. He's a constitutional scholar, so you'd think he'd be aware of that.

I'd like to see someone ask Romney how he feels about interracial marriage. And whether his great-grandfather was right to run off to Mexico to be a polygamist. I'm sure his response would be amusing.

It did however apply to the issuance of interracial marriage licenses in 1967, so ruled the Supreme Court. Up until that point most states in the south banned it. At some point most states in the USA banned it, though many of them came 'round before 1967. So the federal government did come along and tell a bunch of states that they had to allow people of different races to get married. In fact, the very existence of the 14th amendment is to prevent states from denying any citizen the rights afforded to him

He states that the government doesn't have the right to tell people how to think. If someone is racist and murders a black person for being black he's not going to say that man should get away with it. The man should be condemned for murder still. Why would anyone think the government knows best for how I think. BTW I'm Native American (something that makes me laugh about the illegal immigrants woe's) and my people were raped, murdered, then condemned to true ghetto's. It's wrong to discriminate, but it's far more wrong for the government to tell me how I think is wrong. As long as I don't impede on others rights I should be able to consume what I like, say what I like, do what I like.

Always remember you supposedly have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those who forget that don't belong here, and that goes for most of our current politicians. Note, I also mostly vote typically democratic, as I believe "Obamacare" falls under the right to life, and both parties disagree with my right to liberty. One win is better than none.

TL;DR Summary: Ron Paul believes in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the government doesn't have the right to tell a man how to think.

What tha fuck does this have to do with a slash and a dot? or a pound and bang for that matter? WTF?? How the fuck is this news for nerds? What the fuck is happening to Slashdot lately? Useless unrelated political crap and Google bashing is about all you find these days.

Yeah, so you really should stop reading the articles. And posting about them, especially stop posting about them.

Dr. Paul's ideas would be fine for certain countries of Europe, like maybe Norway, Sweden, Finland, or Switzerland.

You must be living in the US... It shows, I'm sorry to mention, because of your comment's utter display in geopolitical illiteracy.

With respect to Scandinavia, you presumably ignore that they enjoy some of the highest standards of living, best education, best healthcare and best pensions in the world. Along with one of the highest tax rates. That's not exactly Ron Paul material, but they're quite happy with it.

As for Switzerland, you might be unaware that there's a rampant and growing "screw rich foreigners

Ah yes, Paul is such a "dangerous" radical! After all he believes that the constitution says that we shouldn't imprison people without a fair trial! And believes that there are things that the Federal government shouldn't control and rightfully is up to the states or the people. Heaven forbid we have a president that believes that! Of course Paul isn't perfect, but he's a heck of a lot better than Romney or Obama.